Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: fyvsix on January 08, 2009, 11:35:25 AM
-
the bombers put in this game are sometimes a puzzle to me, It seems like we are missing some of the main bombers of the war on all sides. I decided to make a list of the obvious ones and spam this forum with it. :D A lot of them are mid and early war, but they are none the less important craft that contributed in large numbers to significant events and battles throughout the war. I'll leave priority to all of you.
He-111
Do-17
Hs-129
G4M Betty
D4Y Judy
SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devistator
B-17F
B-24D
B-29
A-36
Mosquito Bomber
Handley Page Halifax
Vickers Wellington
Petlyakov Pe-2
My favorites for instant addition to the game would of course be the B-17f, B-24D and B-29, But I'm an American Iron guy. Any new bombers or attack aircraft would be good.
Did I miss any good ones?
<S> Fyvsix
-
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6303/nookiejl1.gif)
-
Please remove the annoying cartoon, I'm just day dreaming about some of my favorite planes and not trying to nuke your poor bases, sheesh.
-
I always get a kick out of the nuker's using that as the reason for no 29............ In 2 years of service during the war, the B29 dropped tens of thousands of bombs........... Only 2, by the way, were Atomic. You probably all know their names too!
Please remove the annoying cartoon, I'm just day dreaming about some of my favorite planes and not trying to nuke your poor bases, sheesh.
Now for you bomber hanger size people............. Trivia question:
What percentage of WWII aircraft were kept in hangers?
What percentage of American bombers did not fit in the south Pacific hangers at US Army Air Corp bases?
Can anybody on the board find a photo of a B29 sitting in a hanger during the war?
Now for you strip people..... During the war it was not uncommon for the short runways of the south Pacific to cause Superfortress's to go into the ocean... Go look for yourself downers!!!
Are there any other excuses not to have it?
-
Yep...
Once we get the B-29 we we will be pounded with the nook requests.
-
Are there any other excuses not to have it?
Besides HTC having to also model some Late War Japanese high altitude interceptors to go along with it, there are other more important bombers to be made to fill in the planeset.
And after we get it we'll constantly hear "we need a n00k". Even more than we hear now.
-
Def never a nook. It really has no bearing on good game play, that much is certain. BUT... Part of the B29 problem, which has now been corrected, is that HiTech Creations, on the website itself, mentions the B29 as a perked plane. That was last year and now I don't seem to be able to find it. With that said, you would almost want to think they have many of the features modeled already.
Does anybody else remember that?
Besides HTC having to also model some Late War Japanese high altitude interceptors to go along with it, there are other more important bombers to be made to fill in the planeset.
And after we get it we'll constantly hear "we need a n00k". Even more than we hear now.
But for the time being we do have a nice assortment of fighters that could pursue these high altitude bombers... From the 5 eny 152 all the way down the list to a 25 eny p47.... Although a high alt Japanese fighter would be AWESOME!
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Please forget the Short Stirling. ;)
BTW - what about LRMP planes? Condor, PBY, Short Sunderland, etc? I know we'd need some sort of rule to make these viable otherwise they'd be a waste of time, but still...
-
The bombers we have in-game already fly as high and as fast as the B-29 cruised.
We should NEVER get the B-29 until we get some sort of bomber engine/power limitations.
The thing about the B-29 wasn't only payload, it was speed. Currently most of the bombers in this game can push 300mph TAS with ease, climb MANY times faster than they did historically, all because they take 25% fuel and jam the throttles to the stops from the start of the mission until they die or land.
Fix THAT first, then maybe we'll have a place for the B-29. Until then, it would only be abused far worse than existing bombers are.
-
As I've said many times before: tighten the leash on the drones. Go too far above cruise speeds and your drones go "pop."
Also, no ordinance release controls from the pilot's position (exclude light bombers/attack, medium bombers like the B-25s, and others as appropriate).
-
Yep...
Once we get the B-29 we we will be pounded with the nook requests.
No we Won't!!
The only ones who would ask for the nuke would have to be a bunch of ignorant--------mmmm never mind, you're right!!
-
Why can't we just be happy with what we have? It's not like you're really gonna quit the game if we don't get more planes. Even if you did it wouldn't hurt HTC at all. :aok
-
The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/A-36.jpg)
ack-ack
-
The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/A-36.jpg)
ack-ack
Lets not cloud the issue with facts!!
-
The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.
ack-ack
I know ak, but I included it as an interesting attack plane used in the med and china.
-
The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/A-36.jpg)
ack-ack
one beautiful aircraft....err....that thing doesnt have 2 engines!!! :mad: :mad:
-
I always get a kick out of the nuker's using that as the reason for no 29............ In 2 years of service during the war, the B29 dropped tens of thousands of bombs........... Only 2, by the way, were Atomic. You probably all know their names too!
Now for you bomber hanger size people............. Trivia question:
What percentage of WWII aircraft were kept in hangers?
What percentage of American bombers did not fit in the south Pacific hangers at US Army Air Corp bases?
Can anybody on the board find a photo of a B29 sitting in a hanger during the war?
Now for you strip people..... During the war it was not uncommon for the short runways of the south Pacific to cause Superfortress's to go into the ocean... Go look for yourself downers!!!
Are there any other excuses not to have it?
June 5, 1944 first combat mission. Not really two years of combat.
The issue isn't it's history. It would be it's use. Are you going to limit it to only the furthest bases? Are you going to limit it to only certain altitudes?
With the way the 4 engined heavies are used and abused in the MA right now, what good would the 29 do, other then to get people to grief the game even more? 3 B29s low alt to a carrier? 3 29s suiciding an airfield? How would introducing the 29 make the game better?
-
Yep...
Once we get the B-29 we we will be pounded with the nook requests.
...and many will dive-bomb with it. :huh
-
I guess that's the problem guppy, I never play that way. I take off from a base in the rear and climb out to level bomb above 15k mostly. I can't help the retards who think just because the game allows them to do it then it's fine to dive bomb with lancs.
I usually hang out in AvA or mid war where it's a little better. I like to do as good as the next guy, but not by sacrificing the historic feel I get when I do thing properly. It's the same reason I don't like furballing, everything was about the mission, that's what I get into, the mission.
When I was in a bomb group in Warbirds we learned formations and flew missions every squad night. I'm not terribly motivated by scores, and have no respect for those who fly the "easy" ride because it's easy for them to score in the furball.
The B-29 aside, can we knock the nose turrets of the 17g and 24j to make a 17f and 24d? Imagine all the great skins!
Anyway, just my 2 cents
Fyv
-
shouldn't you be flying an se5a 56
Addman
-
Oh no! Addman's on to my alter ego! Maybe if they wever fix the top gun. :mad: :mad:
-
I'll give you credit for the He111, G4M Betty, and Wellington. On the other hand a big "NO" to more B17 or B24 variants and an even bigger NOOO to the B29. We have no need for it and most of us are already sick of the dive bombing hvy buffs we already have. The US is well represented, I'd like to see many other more important bombers introduced vs the B29 (or any other US bomber). Oh, and the Stirling? Are you looking up the stats on these bombers before posting them? The Stirling and the Lanc are twins. We need to fill in the gaps. ;)
The G4M Betty would be just nasty to attack, a 20mm dorsal turret and a 20mm tail turret. There wouldnt be any "pings" vs attacking fighters.
The He111 needs to explantion as to why it needs to be added, imo.
The Soviets would put the IL-4 or Tu2 to good use. The Pe-2 is quite weak compared to the IL-4 or Tu-2. Im not sure why you left those 2 bombers out.
The Wellington is the UK's B26, comparatively. With its 4500lb bomb load and 255 mph cruise at 12k alt, its 4/.30 cal rear turret it could prove quite useful in the MA. In scenarios for sure. It, along with the He111, G4M, and IL-4 all fill major gaps.
The Mossie B Mk16 would be a very welcomed addition to AH2. It would be a fast bomber able to deliver 6/500lb of bombs faster than any other aircraft. If AH2 allowed the pot bellied version to be added, it would certainly have to be perked for if the Mossie were able to carry the 4000lb cookie to target at 350mph+ the milk runners and the bomb-n-bail crowd would use nothing else.
Carry on. :D
-
On the other hand a big "NO" to more B17 or B24 variants...We have no need for it...
I disagree with this entirely, especially for outside the Mains.
Right now we have NO B-17 variant appropriate for the Pacific Theater, as the B-17G was only used in Europe. Additionally we don't even HAVE an early-war heavy bomber (our Lancaster is actually mid-war bird). The B-17D or F would be welcome additions for PTO scenarios and FSO setups (an early B-17 would have been interesting for the recent Midway FSO) and in the 1942-1943 period of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe--we can't even skin Memphis Belle because HTC won't accept her for the 17G. The B-24D would also be much more representative of the type for Pacific scenarios, as well as early-war scenarios like Ploesti.
Adding a less well-armed B-17 and B-24 wouldn't change the Mains all that much, but WOULD make a difference for AvA and scenarios.
-
I disagree with this entirely, especially for outside the Mains.
Right now we have NO B-17 variant appropriate for the Pacific Theater, as the B-17G was only used in Europe. Additionally we don't even HAVE an early-war heavy bomber (our Lancaster is actually mid-war bird). The B-17D or F would be welcome additions for PTO scenarios and FSO setups (an early B-17 would have been interesting for the recent Midway FSO) and in the 1942-1943 period of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe--we can't even skin Memphis Belle because HTC won't accept her for the 17G. The B-24D would also be much more representative of the type for Pacific scenarios, as well as early-war scenarios like Ploesti.
Adding a less well-armed B-17 and B-24 wouldn't change the Mains all that much, but WOULD make a difference for AvA and scenarios.
Salute Saxman! This man gets it! Especially considering that the existing forts and libs would not need a lot of work to be converted to an earlier model. I want the Belle! We have 2 p-40's, 2 B-25's, 2 p-39's, 2 ponies, 4 jugs, 2 zekes, 4 hogs, millions of 109's, 2 110's, etc... There were 3,405 B-17F's produced and 2,738 B-24D's. I say bring em on!
-
The A-36 wasn't a bomber, it was an early attack version of the Mustang.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/A-36.jpg)
ack-ack
I knew a bomber pilot would catch that :lol
-
I disagree with this entirely, especially for outside the Mains.
Right now we have NO B-17 variant appropriate for the Pacific Theater, as the B-17G was only used in Europe. Additionally we don't even HAVE an early-war heavy bomber (our Lancaster is actually mid-war bird). The B-17D or F would be welcome additions for PTO scenarios and FSO setups (an early B-17 would have been interesting for the recent Midway FSO) and in the 1942-1943 period of the Allied bombing campaign in Europe--we can't even skin Memphis Belle because HTC won't accept her for the 17G. The B-24D would also be much more representative of the type for Pacific scenarios, as well as early-war scenarios like Ploesti.
Adding a less well-armed B-17 and B-24 wouldn't change the Mains all that much, but WOULD make a difference for AvA and scenarios.
Actually Saxman, I'd disagree on the B24D being representative for the Pacific, as they were quick to add the power turret to the nose so that one is covered by the B24 we have and they had far more of the later model 24s. For Ploesti it would be a plus.
Midway would be a B17E as would the early Pac stuff. Very little outside of Colin Kelly for a shark fin C or D, although it's a pretty bird. In the end if HTC were to add another 17 the F would be the best bet as the 5th AF guys before they transitioned had Fs and obviously the MTO and ETO had F models. I imagine the B17G and the B24J were the best compromise as they are 43-45 and cover the biggest time frame.
-
...can we knock the nose turrets of the 17g and 24j to make a 17f and 24d? Imagine all the great skins!
cough "Memphis Bell" cough
btw fyv check the jg54 forum when you get a chance I found a Gmodel you might like. :aok
-
...and many will dive-bomb with it. :huh
Very few would dive bomb with it.
How many Ar234s are used in suicide dive bomb attacks?
It would be perked VERY heavily.
he Stirling and the Lanc are twins. We need to fill in the gaps. ;)
You could argue that the Halifax and Lancaster are twins, and I'd agree, but the Stirling was certainly not. We don't need it at all, but it was no Lancaster.
The G4M Betty would be just nasty to attack, a 20mm dorsal turret and a 20mm tail turret. There wouldnt be any "pings" vs attacking fighters.
The 20mm cannons on the G4M are the same as the 20mm cannons on the A6M2. They are nothing like as potent as the 20mm cannon on the Ki-67. Sure, it would hurt to get hit by them, but not all that hard to avoid given their spectacularly poor muzzle velocity. The G4M would also light up as it was a flying fuel tank, the fuel tanks being an integral part of the wing. It is needed and badly, but lets not pretend it would fare better here than it did for the Japanese.
The He111 needs to explantion as to why it needs to be added, imo.
Like the G4M it would not do well here, but is needed.
The Soviets would put the IL-4 or Tu2 to good use. The Pe-2 is quite weak compared to the IL-4 or Tu-2. Im not sure why you left those 2 bombers out.
The Tu-2 was rare and only came in late. Calling the Pe-2 weak compared to the Il-4 is baffling. The Pe-2 was much better, if carrying a lighter war load. All three should be added though.
The Wellington is the UK's B26, comparatively. With its 4500lb bomb load and 255 mph cruise at 12k alt, its 4/.30 cal rear turret it could prove quite useful in the MA. In scenarios for sure. It, along with the He111, G4M, and IL-4 all fill major gaps.
Agreed, but the Wellington might, maybe do 255mph flat out at best altitude, with a bit of a tailwind. And that is one reason I strongly advocate for it. It is defended with useful turrets, but only .303s, it is tough as heck, carries a useful warload and is so slow that early war fighters can actually attack it like late war fighters attack B-17s and 24s.
The Mossie B Mk16 would be a very welcomed addition to AH2. It would be a fast bomber able to deliver 6/500lb of bombs faster than any other aircraft. If AH2 allowed the pot bellied version to be added, it would certainly have to be perked for if the Mossie were able to carry the 4000lb cookie to target at 350mph+ the milk runners and the bomb-n-bail crowd would use nothing else.
100% of Mosquito B.Mk XVI's were delivered from the factory with bulged bellies for the 4000lb 'cookie'. There were B.Mk IVs and B.Mk IXs that were modified to carry them, but the B.Mk XVI was intended to from the very start. I'd like to see the B.Mk XVI as a perk bomber, which it pretty clearly is along with the A-26 and B-29. I think the G4M2, He111H-6, Il-4, Pe-2 and Wellington B.Mk III should all have higher priority.
For MA bombers I'd like to see the Tu-2, Ju188A-1, B-29A and Mosquito B.Mk XVI, but I think those are lower priority than the four mentioned above. Other nice late war options are the He177A-5 Grief, P1Y1 Ginga "Frances", B7A2 Ryusei "Grace" and Il-10.
-
You forgot the A-26 on your list!
-
I knew a bomber pilot would catch that :lol
Are you sullying the name of the wonderful Lightning by calling it a bomber?
ack-ack
-
The Tu-2 was rare and only came in late. Calling the Pe-2 weak compared to the Il-4 is baffling. The Pe-2 was much better, if carrying a lighter war load.
The Tu-2 (if I said IL-4, my bad) was far more capable than the Pe-3 with its dual 20mm cannons and 3000lbs+ more ord. I 'spose either could be argued for since the Pe-2 was far more produced and longer serving than the Tu-2 and obviously had a bigger impact on the war albeit a lesser capability.
The Pe-2 would be a slower Mossie with no Hispanos (or rockets) and only two forward firing .30 cals. Not a good performer for the MA, really. Tu-2 or IL-4, imo. :)
Regarding the B24x and B17x arguements... I dont think there are enough differences between the models to warrent HTC spedning their time and effort on them when there are so many other gaps to fill. The bomb loads, speeds, etc are all too similar, imo. Yeah, there are some differences in defensive guns, but even then... do they change their offensive capability enough to warrant all the time and effert???
-
There would be very little effort in adding a B-17F and it would be much more appropriate for a lot of settings.
-
The bombers we have in-game already fly as high and as fast as the B-29 cruised.
We should NEVER get the B-29 until we get some sort of bomber engine/power limitations.
And engine failures. :)
I'd love to see someone gettin ready for take off, gettin the engines goin, then having both their left engines go out, and their gears crashing in on them. :)
I, personally, would love to see the Dornier Do-217...
-
We need the TU-2 more then any other airplane in the game, I believe. By giving us this bomber Aces High would be fulfilling the following.
1, Filling out the Russian set.
2, Throwing the bomber guys a bone.
3, Giving us a highly capable airplane that can compete in the LWAs arenas where most of the action is.
4, Actually giving us a "other then Yank" bomber that can compete , and enhance, realistic missions and events.
Right now I'm having visions of the major eastern front battles of '43, '44, and '45. The TU-2 was at most of them, including the ones against Japan. Like the other Soviet airplanes we have already they reflect the basic mindset of the Soviet Air Force of WW-2. Close to the front, aggressive, and heavily involved in tactical operations. This was probably the best medium bomber of the war. Designed with pencil and paper by a guy sitting in a prison cell. The TU-2 would be like giving your B-26 the speed of a KI-67, or your KI-67 the bombload of a B-26.
It would be a great addition to the game. The PE-2 would be a fine alternative but I think we really need a Soviet level bomber.
-
Problem with the Tu-2 is it only covers mid-1944 to the end of the war leaving 1941 through mid-1944 completely uncovered. It is the same problem the Ki-67 gives Japan.
Yes, the Tu-2 would be nice, but we also need the Il-4 or Pe-2 as well as the G4M2 to cover those nation's earlier bombers.
-
the bombers put in this game are sometimes a puzzle to me, It seems like we are missing some of the main bombers of the war on all sides. I decided to make a list of the obvious ones and spam this forum with it. :D A lot of them are mid and early war, but they are none the less important craft that contributed in large numbers to significant events and battles throughout the war. I'll leave priority to all of you.
He-111 yes we need to get that added
Do-17 That too
Hs-129 After we get the other stuff
G4M Betty We need that
D4Y Judy not yet
SB2C Helldiver lets just use the sbd for now we get that later
TBD Devistator sure but we should wait for a russian one first
B-17F we have the b-17g that is good for now
B-24D we have the b-24J which is better than that one
B-29 IN
A-36 Just use a loaded pony
Mosquito Bomber sure that wuld be nice
Handley Page Halifax later on
Vickers Wellingtonsame as halifax
Petlyakov Pe-2 #1 priority!
My favorites for instant addition to the game would of course be the B-17f, B-24D and B-29, But I'm an American Iron guy. Any new bombers or attack aircraft would be good.
Did I miss any good ones? Beaufighter,Beaufort,Lockheed Hudson, ju-87 G1
<S> Fyvsix
-
I always get a kick out of the nuker's using that as the reason for no 29............ In 2 years of service during the war, the B29 dropped tens of thousands of bombs........... Only 2, by the way, were Atomic. You probably all know their names too!
Now for you bomber hanger size people............. Trivia question:
What percentage of WWII aircraft were kept in hangers?
What percentage of American bombers did not fit in the south Pacific hangers at US Army Air Corp bases?
Can anybody on the board find a photo of a B29 sitting in a hanger during the war?
Now for you strip people..... During the war it was not uncommon for the short runways of the south Pacific to cause Superfortress's to go into the ocean... Go look for yourself downers!!!
Are there any other excuses not to have it?
The EnolaGay
And
The BoxCar
Yes???
-
...and many will dive-bomb with it. :huh
Good fight gvs/tanks
-
Problem with the Tu-2 is it only covers mid-1944 to the end of the war leaving 1941 through mid-1944 completely uncovered. It is the same problem the Ki-67 gives Japan.
Yes, the Tu-2 would be nice, but we also need the Il-4 or Pe-2 as well as the G4M2 to cover those nation's earlier bombers.
Im going from memory but TU-2s did fly in combat, squadron strength, in 1943. I believe they were at Kursk and the Kalinin front 1943. I dont have time to research it now. :salute
-
Id like to see all of these planes, and more. It doesnt matter if there are better performers already here, or if a certain plane wouldnt fit in the LW. There is plenty of room for these "lesser' planes in the EW MW and of course snapshots and scenarios. More choices more targets more realism. more more more....uhoh
-
You forgot the A-26 on your list!
I was about to say that!! :lol
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247406.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247406.0.html)
-
I was about to say that!! :lol
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247406.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247406.0.html)
I was trying to start a fight...no one would bite. Guess my hook is rusty and my bait is dead.
-
The SB2c,son of a b***h 2nd class should be in the game. Despite the crew's dislike of the plane, the SB2C was in fact the most successful dive bomber on the American side, in terms of units killed. Also.The He111 for nothing more than it's historical value, as it was involved in many crucial instances.
-
I was trying to start a fight...no one would bite. Guess my hook is rusty and my bait is dead.
We smelled your dirty hand on the worm. :P
-
re: A-26 & SB2C:
We are stacked on US aircraft. We need other nations filed out.
-
Bomber,
I'll need to double-check but I'm pretty sure the SBD had the Helldiver beat in tonnage. Actually, I think the SBD had EVERY purpose-built divebomber beat in tonnage sunk or destroyed.
-
Im going from memory but TU-2s did fly in combat, squadron strength, in 1943. I believe they were at Kursk and the Kalinin front 1943. I dont have time to research it now. :salute
By January 1944 the first production Tu-2 and Tu-2S bombers had been passed to the regiments of the V-VS, but it was not until June of that year that Tu-2s saw action on a large scale on the Karelian (Finnish) front.
ack-ack
-
Judy! Judy! Judy!
-Sik
-
Do 217
Ju 188
The Do-217 could carry two radio controlled anti-ship missiles. :t
-
Part of the B29 problem, which has now been corrected, is that HiTech Creations, on the website itself, mentions the B29 as a perked plane. That was last year and now I don't seem to be able to find it.
It's still there in the help files...
Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc. These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis. So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often.
-
Heh, Ta152. :lol
-
re: A-26 & SB2C:
We are stacked on US aircraft. We need other nations filed out.
I know, but we also 'need' a more useful perked bomber.
-
I know, but we also 'need' a more useful perked bomber.
You just won't let go of that A-26 pipe dream... No more American bombers until we get the Betty, He-111 and a Russian bomber. Think of what's good for our scenarios and not just yourself.
-
410 before them all :t
-
I know, but we also 'need' a more useful perked bomber.
Mosquito B.Mk XVI, He177A-5, B7A2 "Grace", Il-10. Each of those is a potential perk bomber.
-
You just won't let go of that A-26 pipe dream... No more American bombers until we get the Betty, He-111 and a Russian bomber. Think of what's good for our scenarios and not just yourself.
Congrats....didn't know you bought HTC and now have the right to say what we get. again congrats :salute
And the A26 did come in high on the voting we had awhile back. If you notice we have gotten the planes from that vote. So since you run HTC now you need to honor what the people voted for way back when.
<looking up...Yep it's the wishlist forum> :rolleyes:
-
And if the planeset were a popularity contest we'd already have the B-29 with a nuke. :lol
-
And if the planeset were a popularity contest we'd already have the B-29 with a nuke. :lol
HAHAHA!
No...
-FYB
-
And if the planeset were a popularity contest we'd already have the B-29 with a nuke. :lol
Well, no, because that wasn't an option in the vote.
-
AH has bombers in the game???? :O
-
Oh no! Addman's on to my alter ego! Maybe if they wever fix the top gun. :mad: :mad:
lots of assists without the top gun
-
111 should really already be here
droopsnoot p-38 would be a potential perk bomber